On 20/11/05, Adam Funk <adam00f@???> wrote:
> On Sunday 20 November 2005 10:20, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>
> > > Even then it doesn't help since some provider *cough, SPRINT,
> > > cough* insist on not changing reverse DNS on their static blocks or
> > > in any way identify them as different then their dynamic blocks. As
> > > a result the RBLs list both ask dynamic.
> >
> > That makes sense really, because the intent of such a DNSBL is to list
> > IPs which are in the 'probably belongs to a home user who might be
> > more likely to harbour a trojan spambot, and who has an alternative
> > route for outbound email via their ISP's relays' class. The 'dynamic'
> > tag is merely a shortcut, and doesn't cover the whole scope.
>
> It's one thing for admins to say, "We regret inflicting the collateral
> damage on all home users but we feel we have to to blacklist dynamic IPs
> because of all the infected Windows machines." But it's just obnoxious
> snobbery to say that all home users *should* be blocked.
>
> What about some responsibility among blacklist operators? Why not provide
> a way for users who pass some tests to register dyndns-type hostnames for
> whitelisting?
The 'dynamic' DNSBLs are pretty unique in that they're opt-in - ISPs
voluntarily list their 'dynamic' IP space in order that receivers of
mail directly from that IP space can know its origin.
The blocking act is of course at the discretion of the receiver.
Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???
Tel: +44 1296 768003
VoIP: sip:peter@???
